"David Gerard" wrote
- On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at
ntlworld.comhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l *>* <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.comhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> wrote: *>* *>>* > 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or *>>* > substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context *>>* > refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their *>>* > consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical *>>* > violence. *
- Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that
*>>* caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack *>>* site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources *>>* (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of *>>* BADSITES-like policies). *
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are
not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming >harassment policy is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
Charles
Question: What recourse does a living person like I have? (1) I was identified by real life identity on the Foundation list by an accuser. (2) The accuser identified 4 attacks sites by name on the Evidence page, and a fifth "a webpage run by [user name]." (3) The page I do maintain is copy paste of WP discussion I did not participate in.
The sum total is, I become the target of attacks & retribution based upon policy and consensus, not based upon anything I ever did, or any website I am alleged to maintain.